Governance
Constraints written down before they’re tested.
Six streams, an IP council, published kill criteria and a self-imposed revenue target. None of this is binding on a body that does not yet legally exist — which is exactly why it should be published now rather than negotiated later.
Six streams
Research & FRO Development
Atul Mehra · Prasanna · Mukesh · Nihar · Dr. Nene · Rahul G · Nilesh · Sunny
Focus research topics, the industry problem bank, FRO formation, capital requirements and team building. Runs the pods and the R&D-as-a-Service MoUs.
Funding & DeepTech VC Alliance
Rahul Jain · Ganesh Shanbaug · Vishal
FRO funding and investor ecosystem. Government grants, CSR, RDI, VCs and angel funds. Fund formation and deeptech capital access.
Policy Desk & Government Relations
Nipun · Abhivardhan · Sunny · LK · Ashish Garde
Liaison for resources, capital and formal recognition of the FRO. Aligns the work to government goals on scientific research, SMEs and exports.
Academic Partnerships
Preetinder Singh · Mukesh · Niraj Harlalka
MoUs with universities, PhD AI internships and joint research programmes. Owns the six-month institutional partnership path.
Industry Diffusion & GTM
Atul Khandar · Preetinder · Shyam · Sambhaji
Builds the problem bank, the go-to-market motion and the revenue-sharing framework for industry diffusion.
Governance & Execution
Nipun Sikri · Dr. Manish Potdar
Governance structure, KPI tracking, review cadence, IP policy and execution management.
Intellectual property
The council
One body decides, and it is not the funder.
An Intellectual Property Council governs institutional IP. Its members are drawn from research, legal, industry and finance, plus a nominee from the governing board. It approves filings, determines ownership, clears licensing proposals, oversees royalty distribution and resolves disputes.
The FRO owns everything
Researchers assign IP to the organisation and receive recognition and a revenue share. Simple governance, straightforward licensing — the model most universities settled on for good reason.
Shared ownership
Strong inventor motivation, but every subsequent licensing decision needs coordination and disputes become possible. Recommended only where governance is mature.
Project-based
Ownership follows the funding source and is fixed in writing at project start, not argued about at the end.
Holding entity
A trust or SPV centralising patent ownership. Clean accounting, separated IP assets, easier investor participation.
- Exclusive licence — higher upfront, annual minimum, royalty on revenue. For technology needing serious investment to commercialise.
- Non-exclusive licence — lower fee per company, recurring income. For processes, algorithms and tooling with many possible users.
- Spin-off — the FRO retains ownership, licenses to a new company, and earns through equity, fees and royalties.
- Joint venture — the FRO brings the patent, research and credibility; the partner brings manufacturing, engineering and distribution.
- Patent pool — complementary patents combined into one commercial offering under a pool agreement with a pre-agreed revenue formula.
- Assignment — outright sale where the technology is outside strategic focus. Immediate cash, no upside retained.
Funding discipline
Self-imposed
At least 30% of revenue from industry contracts by Year 2.
Published in advance so it can be held against us. Grant-funded research bodies drift toward whoever is writing the cheque; a contract-revenue floor is the cheapest available defence against that.
Patrons receive quarterly updates and an annual briefing. They do not receive editorial control, the ability to direct hiring, or influence over which research questions get asked. All funds are audited. This is written into the memorandum, not into a values statement.